Gene Therapies: Negotiating the Priceless-Insights from the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report
READ MORE
Insights & Articles
With rising healthcare costs around the world, value-based care (VBC) is a paradigm shift poised to make healthcare more accessible and affordable. It’s a departure from the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model, which pays providers each time they perform a service. In this type of care model, providers are rewarded for the volume of care they provide, rather than the quality.
Value-based care shifts the priority of healthcare to patient wellbeing and patient centeredness. Value-based care agreements incentivize healthcare stakeholders to achieve better outcomes, and may even penalize excessive spending or unnecessary procedures.
There are many approaches to providing and paying for value-based care, and they will be the subject of this article. Let’s take a broad look at what VBC is, its benefits, its challenges, and future directions.
Why value-based care is needed
Healthcare costs are rising across the globe, and patients are bearing the brunt of it, with out-of-pocket healthcare costs rising faster than costs to insurers. Drugs are also becoming more expensive, and insurers and employers are concerned about high-cost claims. Many insurers are refusing to cover expensive treatments, like cell and gene therapies, or GLP-1 agonists.
Although the fee-for-service model is still important, value-based care can fill the gaps to bring medicines to patients faster. Using cell and gene therapies as an example, VBC could prevent patients like Forrest VanPatten from dying during the process of jumping from insurer to insurer, hoping to find one that will cover the treatment.
Alternative payment models (ABMs), a core element in the delivery of VBC, help these therapies get to market faster, by lowering the financial burden of expensive therapies. This could include installment payments, among several types of value-based contracts.
Although pharmaceutical companies continue to improve patient outcomes by developing more effective medicines, healthcare costs include more than the price of the drugs. The total cost of care must also be managed and requires a close evaluation of how care is delivered to the patient.
Ultimately, value-based care is a strategy to deliver a better healthcare experience to the patient while utilizing resources more effectively. It is feasible to reward healthcare practitioners for improving patient health, whether it be keeping them out of the hospital, reducing their reliance on medication, or becoming completely disease-free. But there are many challenges in implementing these models, as we’ll discuss.
The types of value-based care
There are many forms of value-based care, and different terms are used interchangeably. Use the glossary table below while reading this article to better understand.
VBC can involve the following:
There are many ways medicine and care can be delivered to people in ways that support better outcomes. Let’s summarize the models above.
Effective care delivery
The accountable care organization (ACO) is a group of clinical entities and providers that in synchronization, aim to deliver efficient and cost-effective healthcare to patients. If the efforts are successful, saved costs can be distributed, providing an incentive to avoid unnecessary procedures. A key component of ACOs is that financial responsibility lies on caregivers. ACOs were a central component of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, and generally describe the American healthcare system. However in several European countries, similar models providing integrative care do exist.
This type of integrated care model may still rely on the fee-for-service model, but aim to reduce the volume of care.
Risk-sharing agreements
Several value-based drug pricing agreements foster risk-sharing between the manufacturer of the drug and the payer. The following are examples:
Many of the above terms overlap with each other. What they have in common is that they can address clinical uncertainty—payers may be reluctant to reimburse therapies with limited clinical evidence from the pivotal trial. However, to ensure patient access, risk-sharing agreements are way to allow patients to be treated for a steep discount, while gathering real-world evidence.
In a pay-for-performance agreement, payers will only have to pay for the treatment if anticipated patient outcomes are achieved. Several hybrid iterations of this type of agreement exist, including milestone payments, where payers receive rebates if disease progresses.
You can find specific examples of these kinds of agreements in our Agreements Library.
Population-based payments
Population-based payments facilitate integrative care delivery. They involve payments for either a specific condition, or for the care of an entire patient. However, unlike an ACO, population-based payments are value-based and are not based on the fee-for-service model.
The Health Care Payment Learning & Action Network (HCP LAN) defines population-based payments as a “single payment that encompasses a broad array of services.” This is also more widely referred to as capitation. Capitation can apply to the care for a specific condition, or the entire continuum of care.
NHS England defines capitation as “paying a provider or group of providers to cover the majority (or all) of the care provided to a specified population across different care settings. The regular payments are calculated as a lump sum per patient.”
Capitated payments typically involve a per-member-per-month fee. They provide predictable revenue for hospitals and providers while incentivizing them to provide quality care.
Restricted access
Another way to address clinical uncertainty is to limit who can receive treatment as real-world evidence is being gathered. By refining the eligibility criteria, patients most-likely to benefit from the treatment can receive access.
What are some of the challenges of implementing value-based care?
There are several challenges to implementing value-based care. They include:
One challenge with VBC is deciding on patient eligibility. Insurers may choose to cover a very select group of patients, denying others who may need treatment coverage, to ensure that they are incentivized accordingly. This leads to another challenge: choosing the right outcomes to measure. In the fee-for-service model, billing is tied to the condition and medication being prescribed, whereas in a value-based contract, financial incentives are tied to outcomes measured by a healthcare provider.
The chosen outcomes must be evidence-based and tracked accordingly. Collecting data, sharing it with various stakeholders, and integrating it into a patient’s care is another challenge. Great structural changes are needed to ensure the compliant sharing of this type of data.
For manufacturers and hospitals alike, another challenge is to manage revenues. Pharmaceutical companies may be unclear for example on how drug profitability could vary with a performance-based or utilization cap contract. One of our solutions to this largely manual process was to create a drug price simulator. This tool helps manufacturers of health technologies compare and contrast different value-based contracts during the negotiation process.
For hospitals, it’s imperative to correctly track rebates, especially if they are warranted after upfront payments: our rebate management platform helps hospital systems identify up to 30% more rebates.
Value-based care can balance innovation while lowering healthcare costs, but implementing it involves enhanced coordination of care delivery and significant organizational changes. VBC also involves innovative payment models that share risk with healthcare providers or place the burden of risk on them entirely to incentivize quality care.
Value-based payment models can reduce high upfront costs of expensive therapies while further evidence is gathered to justify the high costs. For providers, VBC may reduce burnout risk by incentivizing them to keep patients healthy.
The integration of value-based care in healthcare systems around the world requires data. At Lyfegen, we help pharma, MedTech, and providers understand the impact of value-based payment models with our innovative software. Let’s make this shift happen together.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
READ MORE
With price tags in the millions, gene therapies are redefining medicine—and reshaping how we negotiate access to it. For both payers and pharmaceutical companies, these breakthrough treatments present a shared challenge: how do you fund what feels priceless?
From Zolgensma to Hemgenix, gene therapies promise one-time cures for rare and life-threatening diseases. But the financial model behind them can’t follow the traditional playbook. These treatments call for a smarter, more collaborative approach to pricing—and that’s exactly what’s taking root.
Why Payers and Pharma Need a New Playbook
Unlike conventional drugs, gene therapies frontload their cost while delivering benefits over time. That disconnect forces a fundamental rethink of how pricing, reimbursement, and risk-sharing are handled.
According to the Lyfegen 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report, health systems worldwide are moving toward innovative agreements: outcome guarantees, installment plans, and subscription-based models. These aren’t just experiments—they’re becoming essential tools to balance patient access with financial responsibility.
For payers, it’s about managing risk while maintaining equity. For pharma, it’s about demonstrating value in a way that aligns with clinical reality. Either way, the direction is clear: shared risk, shared benefit.
Global Shifts That Are Shaping the Market
The trends are global and accelerating. In the United States, payers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and Medicaid are embracing outcome-based models for sickle cell gene therapies like Casgevy and Lyfgenia. Brazil’s Ministry of Health uses installment payments for Zolgensma, spreading risk over five years while tying reimbursement to real-world outcomes.
In Europe, countries like Spain and Italy combine restricted coverage with annual reassessments, ensuring that high-cost therapies are only reimbursed if they continue to deliver results.
The message? Pricing innovation is no longer a nice-to-have—it’s the only way forward.
How Lyfegen Bridges the Gap
At Lyfegen, we help payers and pharma move beyond the negotiation table—and into action.
• Our Agreements Library, the world’s largest digital repository of value-based contracts, helps you understand what others are doing and where the benchmarks lie.
• Our pricing simulation engine lets both sides explore scenarios before committing—making deals smarter from day one.
• And our automated platform handles everything from contract setup to rebate tracking, saving time, reducing risk, and driving transparency.
A Smarter Way to Fund the Future of Medicine
Gene therapies will continue to challenge the limits of what we think healthcare can afford. But with the right models and tools, both payers and pharma can find common ground—ensuring that innovation reaches the patients who need it most.
Curious about what’s next in drug contracting?
Download the 2024 Drug Contracting Trends Report for exclusive insights, real-world examples, and global benchmarks.
READ MORE
The UK government is taking a bold step toward modernizing public services by cutting red tape, integrating AI into operations, and bringing NHS England back under direct ministerial control. This reform signals a shift toward efficiency, innovation, and better patient care—one where AI-driven solutions like Lyfegen can play a pivotal role.
NHS England was originally established in 2012 as an arm’s-length organization to insulate the health service from political interference. Over time, however, bureaucracy accumulated, slowing decision-making and increasing costs. With Starmer’s decision to fold NHS England’s functions back into the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the system is poised for a fresh start. This restructuring aims to eliminate redundant roles, reduce administrative waste, and reallocate resources to frontline care—ushering in a new era of efficient and accountable healthcare management.
A key takeaway from Starmer’s announcement is his strong push for automation. The government is aiming to cut administrative costs by 25%, ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: patient care.
Some of the expected changes include:
By integrating NHS England’s functions into the DHSC, the government is positioned to strengthen and streamline negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. This shift could lead to:
One of the most promising aspects of this reform is the government’s commitment to leveraging AI to transform operations. For an AI-powered platform like Lyfegen, this presents a significant opportunity to deliver real-world benefits in healthcare management. Here’s how Lyfegen can help:
While AI promises to revolutionize healthcare efficiency, successful implementation will require overcoming hurdles such as:
Transforming the NHS is no small task. Beyond balancing innovation and cost, the government must manage vast amounts of healthcare data and navigate the complexities of implementing change at scale. However, Starmer’s announcement represents more than just another cycle of NHS reforms—it’s a meaningful step toward a future where efficiency and technology-driven innovation deliver real, lasting benefits to patients.
At Lyfegen, we’re ready to support this transformation by delivering AI-powered solutions that drive real savings and faster patient access. Let’s build a smarter, more efficient NHS together.
Want to see how our AI-powered solutions can support smarter drug pricing and better healthcare access? Let’s schedule a demo today.
Sign up & be the first to know about INNOVATIONS
* By sending this message, you agree to our privacy policy.
